Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 565 posts

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#461

Post by tick_tock_tick »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #420
isabelc wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most people I know voted Republican were low-wage working people Because Republicans put more money back in the pockets of low wage workers with kids. Most people don't have the luxury of voting along idealistic lines, they vote based on finances out of necessity. Low-wage workers with children were those most hurt by the Obama's ACA Mandate penalty tax, piled on top of not being able to afford health insurance. Rep…

Isn't it a core Republican talking point that the Democrats secure support from low-wage people with generous handouts? This seems like another example of the OPs point about the world being upside down.

"Handouts" are viewed very differently then taxes by the general public. One is the government giving out free stuff the other is them taking YOUR money.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#462

Post by pydry »

mastazi wrote: post #443
vkou wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not think that the mainstream Republican party has moved radically rightward over the past 12 years? It's not spending its energy discussing Laffer curves and energy policy, and whether or not someone can be fired from their job for being gay, or if we should invade another Middle Eastern country anymore. It's spending its energy seriously talking about QAnon, and how the COVID pandemic is over, and and how th…

> But we no longer live in a sane world One way to deal with this type of dysphoria would be to spend some quality time with people who hold views different from the ones you have, and it would be much better if you didn't do that online, but in person - for reasons that I'm sure you understand well, since you are an HN reader. Or, you decide that everyone on the other side of the fence is completely bollocks. But wi…

I've done that. It doesn't really help because there's no effective, scalable antidote to enragement engagement, herd behavior and people who are susceptible to emotional manipulation.

It's not like red state people have a monopoly on this behavior, but it seems to be a bit more common among them.

Politically we seem to be in some sort of positive feedback loop of anger/fear/suffering -> lashing out -> more anger/fear/suffering. It's scary.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#463

Post by christophilus »

mastazi wrote: post #244

This is my personal experience: over the course of my life, I have held both conservative positions and more progressive ones (depending on the topic, and in different periods of my life). I have always been much more willing to discuss openly those positions that I would describe as progressive. This is despite the fact that over the years I have been living in more than a handful of different countries, each one wi…

I’m similar. It’s a good question. I think it’s because there’s a pervasive underlying presupposition that conservatives are less intelligent or at least less educated than liberals, so maybe you subconsciously want to be associated with the smart, scientific group and disassociated from the uneducated, anti science group? I suspect that’s part of it in my case. Also, in my personal experience, if you want to avoid negative consequences, you’re better off keeping conservative opinions to yourself. The same is not true of progressive opinions.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#464

Post by joijoiwejrr »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #445
newswasboring wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My heart broke when reading your article. There are some very different kinds of accusations put on Shor. The most hilarious is definitely the "you are not black so shut up" argument. I understand lived experience and how it impacts a person's ability to speak on a matter. that I have never seen a person even attempt at explaining how the author's lived experience corrupted their chain of thought. Also the original p…

> I understand lived experience and how it impacts a person's ability to speak on a matter. I don’t. „Lived experience“ is just experience, but woke.

All "lived experience" means is "anecdotal evidence, but I'll call you a racist if you disagree."

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#465

Post by tempestn »

throwaway201103 wrote: post #421
nl wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downvotes on this are very aggressive and I'd love to know why. Do people think my summary of the data is wrong or that I'm underestimating the depth of it?

I didn't downvote you but I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. I voted for Trump because I like his style. I like that he pushes back when attacked. I like that he hasn't started any wars. I like my tax return. I like that he renegotiated NAFTA and trade with China. I like that he's getting Arab states to make peace with Israel.

What specifically do you like about the USMCA vs NAFTA? Do you feel it was worth the alienation of Canada as an ally? What advantages do you feel have been gained in trade with China? Wouldn't it have been more productive to work with allies on that front, rather than launching a unilateral trade war? Are these really the reasons you like him, or are they justifications?

I agree that not starting wars is good (except potentially when it's the only way to stop a terrible human rights abuse, like a genocide), and Trump certainly has a better record than Bush there. He does also seem to have made progress with middle east treaties. So I am with you there.

What on earth do you like about his style though? His style is to lie about everything, making up whatever supposed fact suits him at the moment, launch ridiculous ad hominem attacks at anyone he views as an enemy, and just basically stir up anger and discord. The way he "pushes back" is that of a childhood bully. He has ramped up partisan division and anger to an unprecedented level in modern history, and is in the process of undermining confidence in the democratic process itself. He's also alienated the rest of the world with his narcissism, incivility and pettiness. These do not seem like good qualities in a person, and especially not in a president.

I can understand people who vote for him because they're staunchly pro life. I'm not, but I can understand their ethical position. And I can understand those who have fallen for conspiracy theories. But if you're existing in the same reality I am, reading the things the man writes, and listening to the things he says, I honestly can't imagine how you can support him. I'm not one of these that thinks all Trump supporters are racists, or conspiracy theorists, or Russian bots, but I do find that any I've met who seem reasonable, once I dig deeper, believe things about the world that I don't just disagree with but know to be factually untrue. I've also met some who see the world the way I do, but aren't reasonable - basically those who just enjoy the fact that he makes the other side angry. I would truly like to understand what, besides a genuine belief that abortion is murder, could bring a reasonable, knowledgeable person to vote for Trump.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#466

Post by tempestn »

christophilus wrote: post #458
irrational wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotal, but every single person I've spoken to who voted for Trump does believe one or more of these conspiracy theories.

I know a lot of Trump voters, and I’m not aware of any who believe these things. It might be my own bubble, though. They voted almost exclusively due to the abortion issue.

Yeah, I think that's a separate category. I've tried to engage with a number of Trump supporters, as I'd really like to understand how reasonable, ethical people could vote for someone I see as so despicable and dangerous. Obviously I'm missing something, and I honestly don't want to think that half the US population is unreasonable on unethical.

I've found that the most reasonable people tend to be staunchly pro life. And I can see that—if you truly believed abortion was murder, it would be reasonable to support almost anyone who might stop it. I don't believe that, but I can respect it. Others tend to believe things about the world that I don't think are true, like climate change isn't a big deal, other countries have been taking advantage of the US for decades, democrats are controlled by the military-industrial complex, etc. Their conclusions might be reasonable if you take their beliefs as fact, but I think their starting position is flawed.

And then there are of course those who aren't reasonable. Those who just enjoy watching Trump troll libs. Those who want to see the whole system burn. Those who just believe whatever Fox or Breitbart or whatever says. Etc.

I mean, I'm sure I have my own biases. I despise the very thought of the man, because of the way he acts and how he doesn't care about the damage he does. But I'm sure that feeling makes it difficult for me to see any of his positive qualities, or that someone could (perhaps rationally?) value those qualities over the negative ones I see. So far though, I haven't been able to find evidence to change my mind.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#467

Post by joijoiwejrr »

systemvoltage wrote: post #314
nxmnxm99 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single demographic went further red than 2016 besides white men. There’s a reason for that.

You’ve got data to back that up?

It's what the exit polls say, although the main lesson we've learned this year is not to trust polls.

What's clearer is that Trump made big gains in areas of the country with a high Latino and Hispanic population - e.g. Santa Ana county, CA, which is 77% Hispanic, saw a 13-point swing to Trump, and there are many similar datapoints from across the country. It's pretty clear Trump carried Florida on the strength of the Latino vote in that state. There's also similar evidence that Trump made big gains this year among Asians.

https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1326190869163225090

https://sweep.thedispatch.com/p/the-sweep-dont-trust-the-exi...

So to summarise: Trump definitely made gains among Hispanics and probably made gains among Asians according to voting data; he made gains with every demographic except white men according to exit polls; the former data is more reliable than the latter.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#468

Post by tempestn »

apta wrote: post #393
Der_Einzige wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing but I bet that about 30-40% of his voters believe it.

No point guessing here, either produce proper evidence or don't bother ostracizing the other group.

"Produce proper evidence" - excellent advice. Would be nice if the president himself followed it.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#469

Post by joijoiwejrr »

root_axis wrote: post #430
darawk wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is no correlation between when a Dem condemned violent protest and whether they won their election You got a source on that? It's clear that democrats lost ground, despite the Republican party's abject failure to control the coronavirus. This should have been the easiest win in world history, and somehow, the Democrats barely escaped with the presidency. There is pretty clearly something to explain here.

306 electoral votes is not "barley getting by", that's the exact same margin as Trump in 2016 minus two faithless electors. That's pretty much the definition of a rebuke.

Biden won by razor-thin margins in the swing states, underperformed his polls by 5 to 10 points across the country, and got crushed in several states which pollsters had said were competitive (e.g. Texas). Meanwhile the Democrats lost seats in the House and (probably) failed to take the Senate despite favourable polls and optimistic predictions of a "blue wave".

Happiness = Reality - Expectations. Expectations were very high and the Democrats have a lot of reasons to be unhappy.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#470

Post by joijoiwejrr »

alentist wrote: post #435
newacct583 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, exactly. People who want to scream about how Shor got cancelled have zero interest in actually discussing anything Shor writes. That said, and to be perfectly clear: Civis should not have fired Shor. It was very bad. (To be fair in the other direction: the guy is a known genius in leftie political circles and my understanding is that he's done very well for himself since termination as an independent consultant…

> it's the only good example of the "Cancel Culture" Here's a few more: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282404647160942598.html

It astonishes me that anyone can think "cancel culture" is a right-wing myth.
Post reply on HN